back to article Don't want to vote for Clinton or Trump? How about this woman who says Wi-Fi melts kids' brains?

According to a recent poll, just 10 per cent of Americans are excited about voting for either of the two political parties' presidential candidates in November. As a result, serious attention is being paid to other candidates. And in this case, that is Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party and Jill Stein of the Green Party. …

  1. This post has been deleted by its author

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Isn't Cthulhu running this year?

    1. Michael Hoffmann Silver badge

      Was looking for him on the Aussie ballot, as well, recently. No luck.

      Got Pauline Hanson, though. So close...

      1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

        No, people are already quite mad and what's worse, they keep throwing Pokéballs at Him. Thus the Great Elder One got bored, is now sulking in his undersea palace where walls meet at impossible angles and is commiserating with P.U.T.I.N. on the phone (thanks $ABRAHAMIC_DEITY_OF_CHOICE for fiber optics).

        Meanwhile, Clinton: We Know Russia Behind DNC Hack, Aims to Influence Election: Accuses Trump of 'Encouraging' Putin

        Please let Shoggoths crawl all over D.C. because I just can't stand the permanent hysterical whoring and freak show anymore.

        1. Tim Bergel

          On!y sensible response - break out the popcorn and watch the crazy show for the next three months. And don't forget: no president has enough power to change things significantly for the worst

          1. JEDIDIAH

            Walken/Busey 2016

            Quite. The role of the President primarily plays off what's happening in Congress. Both of our parties are nuts and neither one of them should have control of Congress and the White House at the same time.

          2. Fungus Bob

            Re: no president has enough power to change things significantly for the worst

            No, it's no president has enough power to change things significantly for the better. Some of us remember the Carter years.

    2. Martin Maloney

      "Isn't Cthulhu running this year?"

      You betcha, and here's the T-Shirt:

    3. IvyKing

      Looking to be a long drawn campaign fight between Cthulhu and SMOD for the November elections. Cthulhu's campaign slogan is "picking the greatest of two evils" while SMOD is promising a huge wall of incandescent rock.

    4. Rich 11

      Isn't Cthulhu running this year?

      Some actual insanity would bring much-needed context to the race. It would liven up the debates too. "Dread Lord, in light of your policy to...OH GODS NOOOO!! MY HEAD...*gibber*".

    5. Chris King

      "Isn't Cthulhu running this year?"

      You're too late, Dread Lord - the world is already totally insane.

    6. MJI Silver badge

      Actually Labour need someone electable


      Smith (I think)


      Who would you choose as leader of opposition?

    7. John Sanders
      Thumb Up

      At last, a candidate with some integrity!

      Cthulhu, a candidate you can trust.

      At least you'll be sure of what you'll be getting.

      1. Afernie

        Re: At last, a candidate with some integrity!

        He's the ultimate national unity candidate. After all, we are ALL equal in his eyes. Equally puny, microscopic and beneath notice or contempt, that is...

        1. DropBear

          Re: At last, a candidate with some integrity!

          It's never too late to let Sithrak into your heart...

        2. Robert Helpmann??

          Re: At last, a candidate with some integrity!

          ...we are ALL equal in his eyes. Equally puny, microscopic and beneath notice or contempt...

          Yes, but how does he differentiate himself from the other candidates?

          1. Eddy Ito

            Re: At last, a candidate with some integrity!

            That's easy, he cares for the 100% and has a tentacle beard.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Now That Bernie is Out....

    Trump remains the only sensible option, though. No hidden agenda. He can't hide anything with that ego or mouth. You know what you get upfront.

    Plus, his more extreme actions will be rendered harmless by congress and the senate (so Obama found out).

    1. Dadmin

      Re: Now That Bernie is Out....

      "Trump remains the only sensible option" for those of us still in the Klu Klux Klan

      There, fixed it for you!

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

      2. John Sanders

        Re: Now That Bernie is Out....

        The Democratic party and the Klu Klux Klan:

        There fixed it for you.

    2. Efros

      Re: Now That Bernie is Out....

      You are completely bananas, Bernie and Trump have absolutely nothing in common apart from both of them being in their 70s. Trump in the Oval Office is the fulfilment of Putin's wettest dream. The chaos that would ensue in the western world would be cataclysmic both economically and societally. For Obama to essentially to wipe the floor with him in the White House during a totally unrelated press conference speaks volumes about the trepidation there is about this ignorant twunt getting into office. We're one week into the actual election and he is well on the way to alienating the sensible republicans (I know there ain't many) he just refused to endorse Speaker Ryan and McCain in their upcoming elections, he sees it as payback, but then he is an 8 year old.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        8 years?

        He'll be in office for the next 8 years unless the parties - Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, Commie, whatever - hurry up and find an electable candidate for 2020.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: 8 years?

          "He'll be in office for the next 8 years unless the parties - Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, Commie, whatever - hurry up and find an electable candidate for 2020."

          Hmm, better change the constitution then. Getting the job of president isn't enough.

          If someone is the type of person who is highly capable and motivated to do some good for the country, standing for president is pretty much the last thing they'd decide to do. Why? Because if they got elected they'd then almost certainly run information the problem of not being able to push hard decisions through congress.

          Result - none of the really good people bother to get involved. America's loss.

      2. JEDIDIAH

        Re: Now That Bernie is Out....

        Both Bernie and Trump talk nonsense like the Golden Girl with no impulse control. They say whatever stupid shit that comes into their heads or what they think will get them elected.

        OTOH, most politicians are like that...

        Both represent fringe elements that need to be ejected from their respected parties. Both aren't really members of the parties they are running for. Trump is just an attention whore and Bernie is too afraid to properly label his party affiliation.

      3. Eddy Ito

        Re: Now That Bernie is Out....

        Bernie and Trump have absolutely nothing in common apart from both of them being in their 70s."

        Actually they are probably closer to each other than either is to Hillary. Both have similar attitudes on immigration such as depressing wages in the US and taking American jobs, especially from younger Americans. Both are oppose free-trade whether it's NAFTA or TPP. They both have a similar style of fiery rhetoric.

        See for yourself.

    3. apolodoro

      Re: Now That Bernie is Out....

      He does not have a hidden agenda because he has no agenda. He is the model of the politician who will say anything to get elected.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Now That Bernie is Out....

        like Hillary. She has changed her position on many things to try and get elected.

        Even when she was the First Woman (she has never been a lady or even civilised) her ambition for the top job was obvious. Her self-interest outstrips the Donald's by a very wide margin.

        1. GerryMC

          Re: Now That Bernie is Out....

          Um.. Isn't being ambitious pretty much a prerequisite for anyone to run for POTUS?

          1. John Sanders

            Re: Now That Bernie is Out....

            Except if you're Obama, then things happen because you're lucky.


    4. dan1980

      Re: Now That Bernie is Out....


      "Trump remains the only sensible option, though. No hidden agenda. He can't hide anything with that ego or mouth. You know what you get upfront."

      "Plus, his [Trump's] more extreme actions will be rendered harmless by congress and the senate (so Obama found out)."

      But don't you find those two statements a little incongruous?

      The fact that so much that comes out of his mouth is 'extreme' and, as you say, highly unlikely to get through congress and the senate, what then is his actual agenda? What policies does he have that are going to make it through?

      The problem is not that he has a 'hidden' agenda but that that his 'agenda', such as it stands, seems to be to get elected by appealing to the prejudices of disturbingly large sections of American voters. To say that he does this shamelessly is an understatement.

      But what happens if he does win the Presidency?

      By your admission, and that of even some long-time supporters, many of the 'policies' he has shouted into his echo chamber are not going to eventuate - so how will he actually function as a president? He has no experience in politics, save giving money for favourable treatment, and his personality and inter-personal skills are hardly such as one would hold up as a model of decorum or diplomacy.

      How will he be able to interact with congress, let alone foreign governments and heads of state?

      The bluster and beligerence he wears like a second skin may make him popular with a certain subset of people domestically, but what will be the result when that 'ego' and 'mouth' - neither of which he seems willing or able to suppress - becomes the face of the US rest of the world? How can someone who loudly and unapologetically promises to prevent Muslims from coming to America work productively with the many Muslim allies the US enjoys? Not to mention, you know, a few mildly important Gulf nations.

      What will discussion with the EU look like, given his support of the opinions of Nigel Farage and his claims that the UK are experiencing their 'independence day' and his position that, now that the UK is out from under the rule of the bureaucratic EU, everything will be better?

      Because that, at its heart, seems to be Trump's core platform: that everything wrong with the US can be fixed by making the US, well, a bully. And that's what people supporting him are really supporting - his bullyish attitude. Far from being a concern, his arrogance and unwillingness to ever admit a mistake, much less accept culpability - preferring instead to double-down - appears to be what his supporters are attracted to, because that, seemingly, is what they want the US to be.

      They are Andrea Tantaros' "America is awesome" turned into a political force. They are the idea that anything America does is, ipso facto, right and so any admission of error or - heaven forbid - apology is anti-American.

      Not that I like Clinton a whole lot more as she is a model of the duplicitous, self-interest that pervades politics is nearly all countries. In that regard she is similar to Trump. The important difference - if it must be one or the other - is that she actually experienced and has proven herself able to exist in the swirling an complex world that is international dimplomacy.

      1. John Sanders

        Re: Now That Bernie is Out....

        What has he said that is extreme?

        That the USA should pull out of the middle east and stop senseless wars there?

        That uncontrolled migration for the sake of cheap salaries should be controlled?

        That the corporations are moving American jobs to 3rd world countries, China, Mexico, India?

        What? what exactly, I want examples out of the horse's mouth.

        Because so far I haven't heard anything that is not within the powers of POTUS.

        I'm no fan of Trump (I'm no fan of any politician, they're all crooked aristocracy in my book***) but nothing that the man has said so far is too far from what a silent majority of people think.

        I think Trump gets bashed by the MSM relentlessly in stark contrast with the lack of coverage of Clinton's shenanigans. (BBC Propaganda much?)

        ***If you want further proof check any leaked information about a bunch of politicians, including but not just the DNC leak.

        1. Fluffy Cactus

          Re: Now That Bernie is Out....

          I am sorry, Mr. Sanders, but it seems you are not paying attention.

          Regarding your question of: "What has he said that is extreme?" I can think of several weird and oddly strange things Trump said:

          1) "Why don't we give nuclear weapons to South Korea, so they can fight it out with North Korea?"

          This is not quoted verbatim, but it is the gist of what he said.

          Now, may be Mr. Trump loves to see a "good fight", but may be that was not such a good idea.

          2) "It's ok that Mr. Putin took over Crimea." Now, again, my quotes are not verbatim, but as a candidate

          for US president, you should think before you talk. It may be ok for some drunk dude in a bar to say the very same thing, because "ya know, who the heck wants to fight for that god forsaken island in the black sea, which was russian several times over, and changed hands at least 20 times in the last 1000 years!?

          (I was wrong here, I am sorry: A drunk guy in a bar would never ever know that the friggin' island was

          russian several times and did indeed change hands more than 20 times in the last 1000 years).

          But, geopolitically, strategically Crimea is important, because it provides the russian Navy a harbor that is

          OPEN 12 months out of the year. (Many of the northern russian harbors freeze over in winter, which is nice for the West, but not so much for the Russians. See. some things are a bit more complicated.)

          3) Trump said something disparaging about Nato, saying, roughly "Why are all these, or some of these small Nato countries not contributing at least 2% or 3% of their Gross National Product GDP towards defense? They are freeloaders, and the US pays for their defense! May be I wouldn't defend some of

          those small states, if they don't pay."

          Well, once again, it is not as easy as that: Some of the smaller Nato countries, say Greece, etc. are not paying because they already have trouble paying their teachers, garbage collectors, pensions, and so

          forth. Next, and even more importantly, the well-off nations in Europe are continually buying the bonds

          of the USA, which translated into Trump-level speak, they lend the United States their extra cash. And not only that, they are more or less expected to do so, why, because this is what keeps Nato and

          other things going. And in addition, think clearly, can any off these European nations go and cash out

          the US Bonds? No, because that would destroy the market for these bonds. So, whenever some of these US bonds mature, they role it over into new US bonds, to keep the "them doggies rolling". It's

          sort of like when you borrow money from your dad, and your dad is not going to ask for it back, because that would cause you to default on other loans, and what not. You can research this via the various websites of both Fed and foreign central banks/governments. 5th grade math is sufficient to add things up. Overall, it is not that hard to understand these things, if someone explains them in clear language. As a result, for a person like Trump to not know and understand these things is utterly stupid for a presidential candidate.

          4) There are several things like "senseless wars" and "continued outsourcing" that Trump may be right

          about. I give him that. There was a politician in the 1930's who was right about building German freeways, and who was trying to make "Germany great again" after WW1 and depression, etc., but we can all agree that the means and methods he used were, overall, not that right, and not that good.

          "He means well" and "at least he is honest" were not his slogans, if I remember this right.

          5) The silent majority, what does it think? I am not sure it is the majority, or else Trump would get 70% in the polls. And what does it silently think, this majority? 'I hate foreigners, and people of other races, other religions, and them terrorists, and I hate the government, and I am angry because I have a bad job, or no job, and I am mad as hell, and not gonna take it anymore." Is that it?

          There were numerous statements by Trump that were incoherent and discriminatory on the basis of race, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, disability, and on and on. And he was incapable of even understanding and learning that what he said was not proper in the context of running for president. So, you want a person who shows themselves "proudly as ignorant" and "incapable of learning", "incapable of apologizing" and living in his "own imagined bubble" to be president of the US? A person who openly attacks judges, who makes absurd racist, pigheaded remarks, who pretends to be more successful than he really is, and who generally shows that he does not give a damn about anyone else? I do not understand the average Trump voter.

          6) None of the above means that I'd vote for Hillary. I'd like to say that many accusations against her were "trumped up", but now that Trump has destroyed the meaning of that word, I'd have to find a better one. But, let's take things one by one: The Benghazi attack: An intelligence failure to not anticipate a terrorist attack on one of the US embassies around the world. Who is in charge of overseas intelligence?

          Is it the secretary of state, per se, or is it the CIA, secret service, and the US military, etc? Now, how often has the CIA and US military failed to anticipate something, under both Republican and Democrat administrations? More times than I can count. Secondly, terrorist attacks are surprise attacks, prepared in secret by secret participants. In the best conditions, these are hard and even impossible to predict. So it's not a particular failure by Hillary herself, and that's that.

          Next: Hillary's e-mails: a) I delete about 25 e-mails a day, mostly junk or stuff I don't need anymore.

          So 25 x 365 days x 4 years = 36,500 emails deleted. So, there are Hillary's 30,000 deleted emails.

          Everyone does that, except for people who don't know how to delete an e-mail. Trumped up agian.

          b) I understand that Hillary sent and received official possible sensitive government e-mail, unencrypted, without password. To me, this is fairly ignorant behavior. No excuse for that. But I also learned that many members of congress, senate, CIA, FBI, military, foreign embassies, have indeed sent sensitive data on unencrypted e-mails without passwords on regular e-mail systems, on a regular basis. This includes sensitive data sent by higher level CIA officials. This includes both republicans and democrats. So, I conclude that all these people are guilty of the same stupidity that Hillary committed, and it is possible that the Department of Justice did not indict her SIMPLY because then they would have to indict half the government. That's how smart our government is. Un-smart. The more you know, the more you shake your head.

          May be all this makes sense.

    5. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

      Re: Now That Bernie is Out....

      Good luck getting Congress to stop DT after he has the inevitable Dr Strangelove moment.

      Personally, DT is a total liability and should never be elected to anying including dog catcher.

      It looks like it could actually be the year of 'None of the Above'.

    6. MJI Silver badge

      Re: Now That Bernie is Out....



    7. deconstructionist

      Re: Now That Bernie is Out....

      LOL actually Trump is looked apon by the right wing in the republican party as to liberal , the republican tea party movement hate him with a vengeance and those are the back stage players trying to stop him from within , Clinton is another cuckoo in the nest and to be honest I don't see her as any less worse or better than trump .

      1. both have less than stellar pasts.

      2. both are no stranger to corruption and failure.

      3. both would be a security risk trump through stupidity and Hillary through negligence.

      Still Mr. trump never had one of his advisers steal documents from the national archives like Samuel Berger.

      Trump might destroy the future but Hillary will rewrite the past so she makes sure she does not get the blame.

      SO although many down voted you for suggesting TRUMP is the best bet , using Donald and best in the same sentence precludes putting Trump in there ...maybe Duck.

      But there is no best option both are equally scary as a president

  4. harmjschoonhoven

    I am getting old.

    My first asocciation with anti-vaxx is DEC's VAX.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I am getting old.

      I don't see why you need to link to the entry for VAX. How doesn't know about it? Neurotic Greens, maybe?

      1. DropBear

        Re: I am getting old.

        "How doesn't know about it?"

        Who is this How fellow? Some millennial whipper-snapper perhaps?

        1. A Nother Handle

          Re: I am getting old.

          No no no. Who is on first base. How is the backstop.

          1. Swarthy

            Re: I am getting old.

            A bit of How's yer father, and Bob's yer uncle.

    2. TitterYeNot

      Re: I am getting old.

      "My first asocciation with anti-vaxx is DEC's VAX."

      The association with DEC seems entirely appropriate - after all, the article does seem to be about a bunch of DIX trying to get into power...

    3. Fluffy Cactus

      Re: I am getting old.

      Me too. But here is my 2 cents worth about anti vaxxers:

      I am vaccinated. My kids are vaccinated. My parents were vaccinated. OK, that should tell you

      that I am not an anti-vaxxer.

      The first explanation is totally unscientific. A child/baby that was already on the way to be autistic

      gets vaccinated. There are side effects. Cramps, contortions, screaming, blue in the face, etc.

      The parents go through this, and then after the child is diagnosed autistic, they go through a full on

      "post hoc ergo propter hoc" conniption. Meaning, they believe that since the bad stuff started right after the vaccination, it must have been because of the vaccination. Easy mistake to make. Now if the same thing happens per chance several times in one smaller community, people get together, and talk, and

      compare notes, and before you know it, the anti vaccination movement is born. Add the internet, stir and

      it makes 1,000,000 servings of a great conspiracy theory. That's one way of looking at it.

      The second explanation is a bit more complicated:

      a) Since we scientifically know and appreciate as a fact, that a properly working immune system is necessary for vaccinations to work (meaning, a working immune system has to react and produce the antibodies, that actually make the vaccination work.),


      b) since we also know that in this day and age, some babies will be born with a compromised, or not yet

      fully working immune system (in part because nursing a baby from the mothers breast is not even considered "proper" anymore, in some parts of the world at least, such as USA),


      c) as we know for a fact that the immune system of the mother literally gets transferred via the mother's

      milk, which does not happen without natural nursing,


      d) doctors and hospitals willl want to vaccinate the baby as soon as possible after being born, in part

      due to legal liability concerns, (Baby dies unvaccinated, you pay, baby dies vaccinated, you're OK).

      it could potentially dawn upon us that the vaccination of babies with compromised or not yet fully developed immune systems could lead to a variety of unexpected side effects.

      To this day, I think, no specific method exists to determine whether the baby is either

      "immune compromised" or "not yet ready for vaccination". Correct me if am wrong on this.

      Because, I am not a doctor, and I don't even play a doctor on TV. But trying to reason things out

      has always fascinated me. If what I know is wrong, or incomplete, then I am wrong, of course.

      Yet it's always nice to be right, in an effortless genius sort of way.

  5. JassMan

    she may or may not be right about green issues but:

    "To be clear, Stein is suggesting that Wi-Fi usage may lead to children dying later on in life."

    Doesn't she know that LIFE is a terminal disease.Whether or not you have been subjected to WiFi you ARE GOING TO DIE in later life.

    1. Dadmin

      Re: she may or may not be right about green issues but:

      HAHA! She can't sue any pretend deity, so any product manufacturer will do! It's how morons operate; "everyone else is at fault, my mind is workoring perfuncktly. God is a real guy, and you can't sue him for money, yet all the churches seem to need more money and to not pay any taxes."

      It's a fuckfest for fuckheads.

    2. Dr Scrum Master

      Re: she may or may not be right about green issues but:

      Doesn't she know that LIFE is a terminal disease.

      It's worse than that, it's a sexually transmitted terminal disease.

  6. Martin Gregorie

    She's not wrong

    Kids would be much better off interacting with each other, doing stuff outdoors and developing dexterity by making stuff[*] than sitting in front of a BoobTube,web browser or smartphone.

    [*] and I DON'T mean assembling the pathetic snap-together so-called 'kitsets' sold by Toys R Us and similar purveyors of dumbed-down junk. They should be using real, sharp tools to shape parts and nails, screws and glues to assemble them. Or riding bikes/building trolleys and learning not to fall off them. After all, if you're older than 40 that's what you used to do, so why on earth would you want to deprive present day kids of the fun of gaining those hands-on skills? Don't give them a kite: show them how to make their own so they can feel the thrill of having something they made fly and fly well.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: She's not wrong

      The only thing I've ever used the internet for for the last 20 years is to interact with others.

      The only thing my kids have used the internet for is to interact with each other.

      Inter-net. Inter-act. That's kind of what the internet is for.

    2. scarletherring

      Re: She's not wrong

      And actually, I think this article (uncharacteristically for El Reg) is a bit of a hatchet job.

      Dr Stein is in no way, shape or form an anti-vaxxer in the sense that that McCarthy woman is, say. She has worries about the committees that regulate and approve vaccinations -- which seems like valid concern in a country where corporate lobbyists have their finger in every single pie. But that is a far cry from suggesting it causes autism or whatnot.

      Likewise, I just took her statement about WiFi to underline her broader argument that "It would be better for kids' development to not spend all their time looking at screens". Obviously ubiquitous WiFi would tend to increase that slice of kid's time. The fact that she points out again, correctly, that regulators and public safety committees are stacked by corporate interests, is hardly the same as believing WiFi melts brains.

      The article starts with an observation that, certainly compared to earlier editions, the current election cycle has many Americans looking beyond the two major parties. Maybe do them, and everyone else, a favour and not blindly assume that all third party politicians are fringe lunatics.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: She's not wrong

        "Don't give them a kite: show them how to make their own so they can feel the thrill of having something they made fly and fly well."

        Seen that first hand.

        I once showed a neighbour's son (about 12 years old) how to build a sled kite from a bin liner and a couple of sticks (plus tape) I wasn't sure if he was just humouring me while cutting and sticking, but at the end after flying it he asked if it was OK for him to keep it?

        I was genuinely surprised, how easily we forget the pleasure of actually making something and not from expensive kits.

      2. Eddy Ito

        Re: She's not wrong

        And actually, I think this article (uncharacteristically for El Reg) is a bit of a hatchet job.

        If you haven't noticed, most, not all of their political pieces are hatchet jobs. Sure, there's the occasional warm cooing for Hillary's tech promises which only shows can read what the "good" tech lobbyists paid her to read. It's not clear that she'll follow it as she hasn't followed any reasonable advice regarding IT to date but maybe if the right Google people are shifted over from the Obama administration there's a chance.

    3. Efros

      Re: She's not wrong

      Even something as simple as an Airfix kit teaches a kid how to follow a set of written instructions in the correct order. Try getting a teenager to do that in a lab, without them asking "what am I supposed to do?"...

      1. You aint sin me, roit

        Re: She's not wrong

        You don't understand how children do things these days.

        Take all the mods for Minecraft (pre-MS). They learnt by watching others do things on YouTube, then followed the instructions.

        Why read an instruction manual when you can watch someone doing what you need to do?

        It might not be how you'd prefer them to do things, but that doesn't make it wrong.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: She's not wrong (a quick question)

          "It might not be how you'd prefer them to do things, but that doesn't make it wrong."

          I'm not quite sure he was saying it is completely wrong but real world experience is being lost while we specialise in virtual tasks.

          Not directly related to computers but someobody please answer this very simple question.

          I shared a house once with a girl who went vegetarian as a teenager and told me she lived mainly on microwaved baked potatoes for a couple of years, she then asked me how long to give a potato in the microwave because she didn't know how long it took.

          Why did someone who had been doing something for a couple of years (yes she cooked them herself) not have a clue how to cook a potato in a microwave?

          1. Swarthy

            Re: She's not wrong (a quick question)

            I went Veg for a bout a year in my youth. I did not do it well; and did not get anywhere near the amount of protein needed for continued health. I learned that a lack of protein, say from living on microwaved potatoes for years, can seriously impact brain function. I quit being a vegetarian when an acquaintance asked why I had gone veggie, and I had no answer. I could not remember why I had made the decision to cut out all meat. I knew it was a big enough reason to justify a major life-style change, but I had no idea what it was.

            So it is very possible that your house mate could not remember how long to nuke a potato, due to poor nutrition.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: She's not wrong (a quick question)

              To not leave the question hanging her family had a microwave with an automatic setting for potatoes (it would weigh them) so she just hit potato and went back to watching TV until the timer sounded, she had no time perception of that period due to other distractions and it would be different with size.

              What I was trying to highlight is she could have taken a video telling her how to do the "modern microwave way" but that would not be the same as just doing it manually.

  7. Dave 32


    And, I was pulling for John McAfee, but he lost in the primary election. :-(


    1. Sorry that handle is already taken. Silver badge

      Re: McAfee

      McAfee would certainly be exciting...

  8. Tromos

    A woman who fears her Linksys.

    How silly. Everyone knows it's those D-Links are the ones to watch out for.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: A woman who fears her Linksys.

      Given the number of security flaws repeatedly being found in these consumer-grade routers, I think she's very wise to fear her Linksys, regardless of whether the wireless is turned on or off.

  9. Dadmin

    The one thing all the media, and this one too, won't be telling you...

    is this little-reverberated fact: people have already decided who to vote for months ago, years even. Anyone who says; "I'm on the fence." Is a fucktard who is pretending they haven't yet made up their tiny mind due to lack of <some bullshit> so they can get some attention. Like assholes who get tattoos. Everyone has decided, some will tell you, some won't, and no one, I repeat NO ONE will be changing their minds mid-stream while having some political epiphany because of some thing they read on the Internet, or saw on TV. It's already decided, except for the actual voting part. These "news items" are just crap to get you to tune into an otherwise boring as shit news day, guy. Get a clue.

    The other interesting tidbit is this; whoever is president of the USA does not have that much influence on your day to day lives, idiot. The lack of "greatness" in your life is all due to YOU! And if it sucks, that's the truth trying to tell you you suck and are a dufus^2. Read some fucking books and pull yourself out of the fuckhole you're in. No vote or billionaire president is going to fix your shit life. Not one. It is known.

    1. Mark 85

      Re: The one thing all the media, and this one too, won't be telling you...

      Based on your paragraph #2... that's where I sit. No my mind isn't made up except to reject the first two numpties. As for the two popping their heads up now... it's toss up for the entertainment value. It kind of reminds me of listening to Spiro Agnew or watching Gerald Ford...

      I do believe there's a bunch of folks taking a hard look at their choice between the first two and wondering "what the hell were we thinking?". Or at least, I would hope they are.

      FTR, my state is so late in the primary process, the vote itself is pretty much meaningless.

    2. tom dial Silver badge

      Re: The one thing all the media, and this one too, won't be telling you...

      Indeed, most five or six year old children in families with even the least degree of political awareness know whether they are Democrat or Republican (a few know that they are Libertarian, Socialist, or something else). The degree of change from that point is not zero, but it is quite low, almost certainly less than 20%. This is a very strange election cycle, however, and I suspect there are upwards of thirty or forty per cent. who, like me, are looking at the main alternatives, concluding that neither of them is a good match, and casting an eye in other directions. My own 6yo position was solid Republican, full of the implicitly transmitted knowledge that Harry Truman was the spawn of the devil, and although many years of education and observation convinced me that Truman ranked well among presidents (both earlier and later), I remained well within the Republican fold, with Libertarian tendencies - until now. I was prepared to vote for Bernie Sanders, had the Democrats nominated him, as a candidate of integrity and basic honesty who would be likely to engage politically with the Congress and accept the compromises necessary in a pluralistic, and political, system. I did not fear that he would, like the current president, decline to engage in political negotiation with the Congress and attempt to impose change by executive order when that non-engagement failed. As it is now, I expect to vote for Johnson and Weld who, like Sanders, are experienced political actors who seem likely to approach governing with a bit of honesty and willingness to be political.

      It is true even after the excessive growth of executive power, that there are significant constraints on the president's freedom of action and power to direct things, that the policy inertia of the many government departments and agencies greatly mitigates the damage (or possibly good) even a President Trump or a President Clinton could do. But that is not to say, quite, that lack of greatness is all down to personal failings any more than great success all is a matter of individual merit and industry. Few can, by personal effort alone, lift themselves more than a notch or three, although many decades of experience confirm that government action alone is even less beneficial except to the agents who manage and deliver the benefits.

      1. JEDIDIAH

        Re: The one thing all the media, and this one too, won't be telling you...

        A lot of people are simple in the middle not affiliated with either side. It has been this way since the Continental Congress nearly didn't pass the Declaration of Independence. Both parties are full of themselves and don't acknowledge to what degree people don't drink either flavor of Kool-aid.

    3. Eddy Ito

      Re: The one thing all the media, and this one too, won't be telling you...

      Sorry Dadmin but the only fucktards which decided who to vote for months or years ago are the closed minded non-thinking lever monkeys who simply pull the big D or R lever to select a straight party ticket. Granted that may actually cover about 1/2 the electorate but the rest of us like to keep our options open and are somewhat more savvy than the people of your little dystopian vision of reality.

      I myself have probably converted several voters some in the primary and most in the general election. Most of those were Ds and Rs who were going to pinch their noses so as to not smell the stench of their vote but are now actually excited to vote third party. Sure, some are going L and others G but that's not the point. The point is realizing that voting third party isn't throwing your vote away, the particular monkey in the White House isn't that important to your daily life, and the only way anything is going to change is if there are fewer folks voting for the lesser of two idiots and stop being a victim of the two party cartel.

      1. tom dial Silver badge

        Re: The one thing all the media, and this one too, won't be telling you...

        Empirically, most voters are quite ignorant about both the structure and operation of the government and current or recent past political issues. Many of them, for instance, cannot name their US Representative or Senators, and even more cannot name their state legislators or elected local government officials. While political ignorance is common among those who state a party preference, it is more so among those who do not. Informed independents are uncommon.

        That might be good this cycle because, lacking political party ties and much in the way of knowledge, they may be more easily persuaded by arguments for a minor party candidate. It is as likely, or more, to be bad, however, because their lack of knowledge leaves them with an inadequate basis to judge the competing claims of the several candidates, a situation in which most people are likely to make a conventional choice.

  10. Notas Badoff

    Known risks with quantifiable outcomes

    Ralph Nader and his advocates still claim they did not influence the 2000 election results, Bush winning. Bush then killed 4500 US troops and countless other people unsuccessfully working out his oedipal flaws.

    The US election system stinks but that's the voting landscape to be negotiated. Don't step in the dog turds. A vote for Stein, Johnson, or Harambe *is* a vote for Trump.

    And as for the repeated claims that congress/senate/DOD/states would obstruct any Trump stupidity, so that it doesn't matter what idiot gets elected president, see Bush et al. Oh, and the recent wailing "I didn't think my vote would count!"

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Known risks with quantifiable outcomes

      I love it when people make arguments like this. It lets us know who is incapable of second-grade arithmetic.

      1. Robert Helpmann??

        Re: Known risks with quantifiable outcomes

        It lets us know who is incapable of second-grade arithmetic.

        Or basic logic. A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.

        As it happens, I lived in New Mexico while Johnson was governor of the state. He did decent job from my perspective. Not sure if I will ultimately vote for him, but my experience has been that he would make a better CiC than either of the big party candidates.

    2. tom dial Silver badge

      Re: Known risks with quantifiable outcomes

      There is uncertainty, to be sure, but it seems extremely unlikely that Jill Stein will draw enough votes to matter unless she can find a vice presidential nominee of Bill Clinton's caliber. Johnson/Weld is a different matter, however, and are likely, especially if they manage to get into the debates, to draw both Democratic and Republican votes, although substantially more from Trump than from Clinton.

      Utah will be an interesting state to study, as the Democrats went quite heavily for Sanders and do not much like Clinton, while the Republicans went quite solidly for Cruz and have a rather strong distaste for Trump. I do not think either VP candidate will change that much. I suspect the bordering areas of Idaho, Wyoming, Arizona and Nevada are rather similar, although they are less likely to affect the electoral college breakdown.

    3. scarletherring

      Re: Known risks with quantifiable outcomes

      Yeah, maybe I'd taken that seriously if Gore had managed to win his home state. Or handled the Florida mess better.

      This argument against third parties was completely wrong in 2000, and makes even less sense this time around because there are now two third party candidates in the spotlight and they look to be siphoning votes off both major parties.

      I personally think that is the only way the US can ever be a proper democracy -- instead of the duopoly it is now, where actually the major parties somehow manage to agree exactly on the issues where the general public doesn't -- is to have viable alternatives for both of them in the same cycle.

    4. MJI Silver badge

      Re: Known risks with quantifiable outcomes

      " A vote for Stein, Johnson, or Harambe"

      Oh you want Boris do you?

      Yes he would be a better choice than what you have.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    No, he won't win, but at least I can vote for him without feeling like I've sold my soul in the process. After watching him and Bill Weld compared to the Dem and GOP circuses it's like they're the only adults in the room. Saying that he'd strongly consider pardoning people like Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, and Ross Ulbrich certainly doesn't hurt his case in my eyes. He's solidly at 10%-13% in the polls right now, so as protest votes go it'll at least show up in the final numbers.

    Plus, the way electoral college votes are awarded in my state they'll all go hands-down to the Dem nominee even if they (hypothetically speaking) ran a blood-soaked warmongering Wall Street sellout rape apologist. Whoops, I guess they did do that. So anyway, I could vote for anyone or anything and it makes no difference in the actual outcome.

    So faced with a choice of a nut on the left or a nut on the right, I'll just suck it up and take the Johnson. Besides, if by some miracle he does win then we have at least four years of cheap jokes (as opposed to four years of fatally expensive ones with the two mainstream candidates).

    1. Mark 85

      Re: #FeelTheJohnson

      I totally agree with you on this. I've been watching both front runners and "meh.."....WTF? I wouldn't vote for either one even if they were the only choice. Since we don't have a "none of the above" button... Johnson seems the better choice.

    2. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge

      Re: #FeelTheJohnson

      I think Boris has not given up his US citizenship

      1. lglethal Silver badge

        Re: #FeelTheJohnson

        I always find it funny to hear Americans speak about the "left" and the "right" in American politics. You do realize that your "left" would be counted as so far "right" in Europe, it would probably count as a "far right" party? The fact that you then have something to the right of this, and its a major party is friggin' terrifying!

        1. tom dial Silver badge

          Re: #FeelTheJohnson

          The old notion of tidy "left" and "right" classifications never were very accurate. For instance, on a number of issues, Sanders came across as a fairly hard nationalist - quite "right", while the Libertarian party (and candidate) support for LGBTQ rights and loosening on recreational drug use ("left") is a bit at odds with their rejection of foreign adventurism ("right"). The Democratic party, with Clinton, covers a broad spectrum as well. Trump is Trump, and it is nearly pointless to try to categorize him or his beliefs and policy positions, but down-ticket, the Republicans, like the Democrats, cover a range that is modified significantly by their perceptions of voter leanings in their state or electoral district, where they must compete with other relatively local candidates to gain a plurality or, in some cases, a majority, of the vote. Within such districts, the ideological spread between the major party candidates very often is quite small, and much smaller than the spread between candidates of the same party in districts a thousand or two thousand miles apart.

        2. MJI Silver badge

          Re: #FeelTheJohnson

          US and UK left and right

          The US blue party is slightly to the right of the UK blue party.

          The UK red party and the US red party are both in the hands of buffoons.

  12. Nixinkome


    Well, even I thought that the next leader of the free world would be decided by the vote occurring in just about four months' time. I hadn't realized it was already decided just as it seems no one 'foresaw' our Referendum result.

    I'm not American and cannot vote in their matters but it does also matter who influences many non-American lives.

    I wish Green leaders were as votable for as their underswell draws but politics allows some weird ones to the top, melted brains or not.

    They must have had more than a few days of summer there as I do know that Jill shaves her armpits.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Members of the the House of Lords agree

    with Jill Stein about the adverse effects of technology on developing brains. In fact, one of the few members that actually has scientific training and credibility believes this - Baroness Susan Greenfield (cue outraged response from male IT workers).

    Ms Stein might a little eccentric but she is honest and authentic, which is much more than anyone can say about the other candidates.

    1. Steve Todd

      Re: Members of the the House of Lords agree

      Except that Greenfield isn't talking about WiFi being unsafe, she's talking about large amounts of Internet usage by kids, and her colleagues don't agree with her

    2. Toastan Buttar

      Re: Members of the the House of Lords agree

      SG might well be right about the effects of online technology on brain development. But be careful not to suggest that she thinks Wi-Fi itself is a credible threat to anyone's brain development.

  14. Youngone Silver badge
    Black Helicopters

    @ AC

    To the AC voting for Johnson, you have worked it out.

    Due to gerrymandering, media bias and first past the post electorate voting, your vote will make exactly no difference, just like almost everyone else in the US.

    Your system of government has got to the point where the voters are almost an irrelevance.

    1. tom dial Silver badge

      Re: @ AC

      Gerrymandering affects single member electoral districts for the state legislatures and the US House of Representatives. Only 5 of the 538 electors are chosen from Congressional districts; gerrymandering is a non-issue.

      First past the post has its good and bad points, but where there are at most two parties between them receive roughly nine votes of every ten, as has been true in most of the US for most of its history, it is relatively inconsequential except to those who aspire to replace one of them. And in some places where there is or was only one effective party, it was and is common to have runoffs between the two high vote getters.

      Media bias certainly is a potential problem, but could be mitigated some by including Johnson in the debates along with Clinton and Trump (and Stein, too, if she could get enough poll notice).

      1. Youngone Silver badge

        Re: @ AC

        Gerrymandering affects every electoral district, the electoral commissions are controlled by the two major parties and every state is divided up between them.

        First past the post has no good points, it ensures the two main parties always win.

        Media bias will never be mitigated until the media empires are broken up.

  15. ecofeco Silver badge

    Wifi melts brains?

    Oh please. This is obviously idiotic fear mongering.

    TV melts brains, no WiFi. Or more specifically TV shows.

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Just another distraction.

    I've been seeing this story reposted all over the Internet today. It's not a coincidence that the Stein-bashing articles are coming out just days after the dumpster fire at the convention, she's a legitimate threat to the DNC and they know that Berners are ready to go Green.

    This is a minor gaffe that the media is trying to spin into another Dean scream. Stein's concerns are not about melting brains, but rather the corporate takeover of American schools. Unfortunately all of the major tech media outlets are owned by the same Silicon Valley billionaires that are trying to privatize the schools, so that's why they're pushing a message about Stein being an anti-vaxxer Luddite. Bill Gates especially is a huge proponent of vaccinations and school reform, but only because he has massive investments in pharmaceuticals and has spent billions on "charities" and "donations" for schools.

    1. a_yank_lurker

      Re: Just another distraction.

      I have heard more about Jill Stein in the last few days (all negative) one has to wonder why. It seems like the donkeys are setting her up as the fall girl if Hildafelon loses in November by claiming Stein stole votes from her; a rather nasty insult to the any voter. It would be fun to watch this become a three or four way race with none getting the nod in the Electoral College. Any rate, I will be voting Libertarian for party building if nothing else.

      1. JEDIDIAH

        Re: Just another distraction.

        It doesn't really matter what kind of slander people come up with. I am NOT left of the Democrats.

    2. Smody

      Re: Just another distraction.

      "... the media is trying to spin into another Dean scream."

      Said media including theregister. That headline is on a par with a poster advertising a 1950s sci-fi movie; MELTS YOUR BRAIN!!!! What a load of crap.

      1. albaleo

        Re: Just another distraction.

        "Said media including the register."

        It would seem so. Suggesting she appeals to anti-vaxxers doesn't quite fit what she said in her Washington Post interview.

        "We have a real compelling need for vaccinations. It requires an agency that we can trust to sort through all of those concerns."

        The general tone of her position is that the culture of large corporations and lobbying isn't in the public interest. By the way, any reason you didn't include her "anti-GMO" views?

        1. cray74

          Re: Just another distraction.

          The general tone of her position is that the culture of large corporations and lobbying isn't in the public interest.

          And therefore, Dr. Stein suggests, we can't trust vaccines since they're made by business, which means if she's not anti-vaccinationist then she's pandering to them with one of their favored arguments.

          Worse, despite being a doctor who should be familiar with the vaccine approval process, she keeps describing the process as being dominated by pharmaceutical companies. In fact, the members of the US's FDA's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory committee work at academic or medical institutions, not drug companies.

          By the way, any reason you didn't include her "anti-GMO" views?

          As with vaccines, Dr. Stein uses the language of opposition groups. From "Label GMOs, and put a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe." No food is so thoroughly tested as GMOs before they enter the food supply - i.e., there's already a moratorium on individual GMOs use until testing is complete - and the ones in the food supply have endlessly proven they're safe. But, nope, gotta pound the anti-GMO drums using the endlessly popular begging the question fallacy, "We should ask, do we really know they're safe?"

          And she puts an anti-nuclear plank in her campaign platform. The only science she doesn't seem to equivocate on is global warming.

          1. fung0

            Re: Just another distraction.

            cray74: "No food is so thoroughly tested as GMOs before they enter the food supply..."

            Ah, that old straw-man argument. How quaint.

            Of course, the real concern with GMO foods is not that they're individually toxic to humans. It's that they're allowing corporations, motivated solely by short-term profit, to manipulate the most vital part of our biosphere in drastic, unprecedented and poorly-understood ways.

            We've already seen possible negative results, as weeds become increasingly resistant to Monsanto's Roundup. We've also seen entirely inadequate justification for the whole GMO approach, as evidence continues to mount that smaller-scale, lower-tech farming could probably feed the world more effectively, with less risk of a substantial ecosystem collapse (as we've seen in the bee populations).

            The impact on our environment has not been "thoroughly tested." In fact, it's hard to imagine a really thorough test that wouldn't take many decades, given the complexity of the problem. In any case, when the entire testing system is massively controlled by vested interests, a little skepticism isn't unwarranted.

            "And she puts an anti-nuclear plank in her campaign platform."

            And, with Fukushima still spewing radioactive waste into the Pacific ecosystem, that's a bad thing? While truly safe nuclear power seems theoretically possible, it's impossible to pretend that the nuclear power we now have - a system, again, regulated directly by those who profit from it - is even remotely safe. Most reactors are operating beyond their original design lifetime. Nuclear fuel is being stored on-site, because we still have no plan whatsoever for long-term disposal of spent fuel that requires constant, active cooling to prevent explosion.

            Insurance companies won't touch nuclear projects. Why? Because if the wind had been a bit different, Fukushima would have made Tokyo uninhabitable. As it is, the expense of cleaning up that one mess will probably wipe out any conceivable cost advantage of all nuclear projects so far, worldwide. Just how much more of a warning do we need? At the very least, the regulatory framework needs to be torn down and rebuilt with sane lines of accountability.

  17. NanoMeter

    Trump is taking a deep breath of relief

    He will no longer be the craziest presidential candidate.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Trump is taking a deep breath of relief

      I understand you are making light of the situation but in reality on a scale of one to ten he'd need a Spinal Tap dial on overdrive to even get half way to his level of crazy.

  18. streaky


    because it's very hard to study this stuff

    It's 2016 and we're still claiming things that are very easy to study are actually very difficult.

    In the EU we got vaping (gas chromatography and, y'know, mountains of research into carcinogens/poisins/toxins in vitro and in vivo), and apparently in the US they got WiFi because it's not like anything like MRI or basic cognitive testing of any sort was ever invented or anything.

    If WiFi was damaging to brains (or in fact the opposite of reality where kids are getting smarter because despite falling funding pretty much globally we're as a species getting better at education) it'd be really obvious in the available data.

    It's fine being against things that are essentially good but at least present a shred of evidence.

  19. jbholland

    "We should not be subjecting kids’ brains especially to that. And, you know, we don’t follow that issue in this country, but in Europe where they do, they have good precautions around wireless, maybe not good enough, because it’s very hard to study this stuff. We make guinea pigs out of whole populations and then we discover how many die. And this is like the paradigm for how public health works in this country and it’s outrageous, you know." the actual quote from

    I'm a geek and a green. Jill is great and all she said was basically we don't know if these things are going to have adverse effects and now we'll find out because the whole population is using them. Which to me is not unreasonable.

    But this is one of the worst quotes ever by her. You should really check out her actual platform at .

    1. fung0

      On the other hand...

      The good news is that this kind of shallow disinformation wouldn't be getting seeded to gullible journalists if someone wasn't scared of Jill.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Apparently some smart meters emit EM radiation over 100 times more powerful than mobile phones (and mobile phones emit enought EM in use to interfere with the operation of other electronic devices). There is concern this level of EM radiation received cumulatively could have adverse effects, so should be studied.

    "The poster child of this cumulative ignorance? Anti-vaxxers"

    Their main objections are

    (1) there are too many vaccinations and receiving so many at a young age may cause permanent damage to the immune system. Some vaccines contain trace amounts of harmful substances like mercury, and are alleged to cause autism.

    (2) many of the diseases vaccinated against are no longer prevalent. Some question whether these vaccinations are still necessary, but the pharmaceutical companies lobby the government to continue administering them.

    (3) if vaccines work then you are not a risk from people who have not had the vaccine, therefore vaccinations should never be mandatory.

    "Donald Trump has his KKK"

    Didn't you hear the KKK endorse Hillary Clinton now? (Watch the Clinton Cash documentary showing how corrupt and unprincipled the Clintons really are).

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      > Didn't you hear the KKK endorse Hillary Clinton now?

      Even they know that Trump is too insane for the job.

    2. tiggity Silver badge

      herd immunity

      Let me explain a bit about vaccination re point 3.

      The person vaccinated will develop immunity to measles (let's assume measles jab in this example)

      But the anti disease part goes beyond that 1 person being protected: With a high number of immune people it is far harder for the disease to spread, thus high vaccination rates ("herd immunity") act to stop disease spread & taken to the extreme it is possible to eradicate diseases (e.g. smallpox) that are dependent on human host for reproduction if they fail to reproduce for long enough

      If insufficient herd immunity then easier for diseases to spread thus risking the lives of the non vaccinated.

      Worth noting that young babies are at high risk as more likely to be die / be nastily affected by the disease when young and below minimum age to receive vaccinations (minimum age varies depending on the vaccination), plus some vaccines need boosters over time for full protection, so the main thing protecting the unvaccinated / not fully vaccinated youngster is herd immunity.

      Anti vaccination is a position that can only readily come about in the scenario where vaccination has been effective and lots of nasty baby killing diseases are at a low incidence level & so the perceived risk from measles etc is low.

      If some of the diseases currently vaccinated against start making a strong comeback anti vaccination folk might start to see why these diseases caused dread amongst parents in previous generations & why vaccination is a public health policy in countries that can afford it.

      So refusing vaccination is detrimental to society as a whole as vaccination is about more than 1 persons immunity, it is about the common good.

      1. streaky

        Re: herd immunity

        Somebody has never heard of herd immunity. There are actually genuinely good reasons for specific people not to get vaccinations, so you need to hit another % of vaccinated population or the entire system breaks down and you end up killing the people who through no fault of their own can't be vaccinated. Personally I think it should be an executable offence but I'm old fashioned like that.

        There's a lot of very nasty diseases out there that we're lucky in the west to be able to be vaccinated against safely, relatively cheaply and efficiently. People taking that for granted drive me wild.

  21. CanadianMacFan

    No wonder the US medical system is in trouble

    Just look at some of the examples - Jill Stein and Ben Carson.

    1. MJI Silver badge

      Re: No wonder the US medical system is in trouble

      Is the second one the creationist?

      If so nutcase.

  22. Winkypop Silver badge


    Child endangering scum.

    1. Crisp

      Re: Anti-vaxxers

      Not just endangering.


  23. Tringle

    I feel for our colonial cousins

    In November they have a choice between an incompetent unprincipled self promoting proven liar or Donald Trump. Talk about a rock and hard place.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I feel for our colonial cousins

      I never thought they'd come up with someone that'd make me look back with fondness to the "good old days of George W Bush". But if they elect Trump that's what I'll be doing...

      Bill Clinton: a man to whom you had to listen very carefully to understand what he'd just said.

      George Bush: a man to whom you had to listen very carefully to understand what he'd just said.

      Barack Obama: a man who is very easy to understand.

      Trump: likewise, but really, really not in a good way.

  24. Oengus

    Worse that exposure to Wi-Fi

    Exposure to the US political process is going to be worse for children's minds than Wi-Fi.

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Paris Hilton

    I'm hoping the Libertarian ticket is good.

    They have a town hall on CNN Wednesday night at 9 Eastern. Normally a Libertarian ticket couldn't get covered as more than a curiousity, but as unpopular as Hillary and The Donald are, third parties are getting better coverage this election.

    If nothing else, Paris Hilton is looking pretty good by comparison.

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Appalling article

    No mention of her online store or how secure it is.

    This is what Americans need to know to decide who to vote for, that and the quality of the merchandise and where it was made.

  27. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge
    Paris Hilton

    Vice? President

    If nothing else, Paris Hilton is looking pretty good by comparison.

  28. MJI Silver badge

    Words starting in Vax

    I am afraid I only know of two things of importance.

    A mini computer DEC VAX

    And a brand of carpet washing vacuum cleaners. Vax

    1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

      Re: Words starting in Vax

      And a brand of carpet washing vacuum cleaners.

      Hence the advertising posters once beloved of sysadmins in VAX houses, with the slogan "Nothing sucks like a VAX".

  29. ChubbyBehemoth

    Would you really want to take the chance?

    Of Trump being president?

    Whatever your political affiliations are, I would think that having HC for president as the best chance of preventing an absolute turd for brain lunatic like Trump would be the best of the bad options. And no, I don like her that much either, but she seems largely rational even if technically challenged. Johnson+Weld,.. Stein,.. well,.. to be honest there is something really wrong with the US that of all the politicians it is impossible to find some better qualified presidential candidates than the whole lot of em. I guess if anyone needed to find proof against the notion of intelligent design, you'd only have to take a look at the deplorable state of what is happening there. Or would it be a ploy of (supreme uber being of choice) to enact Armageddon, wipe the slate and try again with something more social like small insects?

    If I weren't so afraid of lots of nukes at the whim of the next president, I would be having a great time looking at the circus of the US election. But it is just too bloody serious to really enjoy. Do they add acid to the water or have they all been sniffing too much glue? Maybe there is something about radio signals being bad for your brain after all. Damn! Stein may be on to something!

    1. fung0

      Re: Would you really want to take the chance?

      If people want to vote "strategically," they should at least try to apply some real strategy, and not merely short-term tactics.

      In each US election, the choices have gotten worse and worse. The way to break that cycle is to create a surge in the popular vote for third-party candidates like Stein. Even if they don't win, it will build public confidence, and finally put one of them in position to take the next election.

      People need to vote out of hope, out of conviction, for the candidate they really want. It's the only way. Otherwise, in four years' time, a new Trump will be offered as "the lesser of two evils," up against someone even worse. The cycle only ends when the voters decide to think ahead. Fearlessly.

  30. PhilipN Silver badge


    Now what have we seen in the past 60 years... No prizes for guessing which of these spent time in the Oval Office :

    Peanut farmer, B-movie actor, playboy/philanderer (more than one of those), hick hayseed or Good Ol' Boy (take your pick), U.S. equivalent of Upper Class Twit (Poppa and Poppy).... Then of course the characterisations of the second-hand car salesman, the Football player without a helmet...

    Three cheers for the Leader of the Free World and Thank God for checks and balances

  31. fung0

    What Kind of Journalism is This?

    ..."foxes are guarding the chicken coop" when it came to vaccines, and that regulatory boards are "routinely packed with corporate lobbyists and CEOs."

    "Like any medication, [vaccines] also should be – what shall we say? – approved by a regulatory board that people can trust."

    "We make guinea pigs out of whole populations and then we discover how many die. And this is like the paradigm for how public health works in this country and it's outrageous, you know."

    This article tries to paint Dr. Jill Stein as some kind of crackpot anti-vaxxer, but the only direct quotes it offers, like those above, utterly fail to support this contention.

    Expressing skepticism about the corporate-controlled mechanisms of public health is a very, very long way from saying that kids shouldn't be vaccinated. Expressing concern about very young kids spending too many hours in front of computer screens, instead of running around the schoolyard, is not necessarily a disparagement of the wonders of the Internet. When we know beyond any doubt that the medical system is being subjected to unprecedented corporate influence, suggesting extra vigilance is not paranoia.

    I've watched many hours of Jill Stein's presentations and interviews. I've never heard her say anything that wasn't rational and based on well-accepted facts. Her platform is based on concerns that are simply not open to question any more, though they might have been labeled 'conspiracy theories' a few years ago.

    Basically, Dr. Stein wants to slash the vast US military budget - clearly a sensible move, given that it has long exceeded that of all other countries combined - and put the money to work creating a 'green new deal' that would rebuild the decimated US middle class while weaning the US off of fossil fuels. On the evolutionary scale, that puts her about 100 million years ahead of war-mongering Wall Street employee Shillary, or fear-mongering fascist Trump - in fact, a very long way ahead of most candidates for most leadership posts in most countries around the world.

    Cherry-picking and misinterpreting a few chance comments is not only shoddy journalism, it's a low sort of character assassination - in this case targeting a person who clearly doesn't deserve it. If you want to disagree with a candidate, do it on the issues, and leave the gossip-mongering to Fox News. I thought the Register was better than this.

  32. heyrick Silver badge

    To be clear, Stein is suggesting that Wi-Fi usage may lead to children dying later on in life.

    Actually, she is right. On two accounts:

    Firstly, the WiFi angle. If the little fat oikes sit there pratting about with their computers and tablets instead of, you know, learning basic social skills and exercising, they will likely have health problems in later life. Nothing to do with the WiFi and quite a lot to do with a childhood sat upon fat arse.

    Secondly, the patently obvious angle. Children do tend to die later on in life. It's this shitty thing called "aging", by which point we pass beyond warranty period, and then into hardware failure period when the MTBF interval gets increasingly smaller until a number of bits fail at once, or an important part conks out. The result is a Total Inability To Support Usual Productivity, otherwise known by the snappier term "death". Some of us can have the Red Button treatment, or maybe hot-swapping of internal components, but it is usually about that time when one realises - the end is nigh.

  33. Old Handle

    Always said I was voting for McAfee

    I even suggested he run, in these very forums, before he did so. For lack of a better option I suppose I'll just stick with that plan even though I'm not sure if he's officially running anymore.

  34. Howard Hanek

    Maiden Name?

    On the planet Zagon where she comes from, what was her maiden name before she was exiled for Crimes Against Inhumanity to a back water planet at the edge of the galaxy?

  35. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Jill Stein speaks the truth

    Shame, the ignorance abounds in the readers and journalists here, who clearly are not familiar with the over 10 000 scientific studies showing harmful biological effects from communications frequencies near the wifi range.

    The World Health Organisation has classified wifi as a class 2b carcinogen, "possibly carcinogenic".

    Anyone wanting to know more should look at the recent American government study, the NTP (National Toxicology Program) study, that completely kills the false idea that non-ionising radiation cannot cause cancer. This extremely well-designed study shows, without much room for doubt, that frequencies used by cellphones and wifi can and do cause brain cancer.

    But let's not let facts get in the way of our love affair with wireless technology.

    For anyone who take the time to look at the real science-- instead of just reading the mainstream regurgitations of regurgitations of carefully selected industry tobacco science-- and is concerned, as you should be, there are many things one can do to limit their exposure, such as using speakerphone on your cellphone, and hard-wiring up your house instead of making it a wifi zone.

    So so sad how those who tell the truth are ridiculed. Ridicule is not an argument, it is an appeal to peer pressure.

  36. Dave 13


    Weevils in order from greater to lesser; Trump, Clinton, Stein, Johnson. Of the bunch, Johnson seems most reasonable and honest. Sadly, most Americans will vote for what they see as the lesser of 2 weevils when what they'll get is simply a (we)evil.

  37. MachDiamond Silver badge


    Just have a look at Ms. Stein's web site and when you stop laughing (or shuddering) it's easy to see why 3rd party candidates have had little chance of being elected. While moderate candidates usually do poorly, the most extreme ones are labeled as whack jobs and are completely ignored by the media.

    Hillary is a criminal and needs to be in prison, not the White House. Donald is way over the top and should do more thinking before engaging the vocal cords. The rest of the US Federal government are criminals, so having a Clinton back in charge is a recipe for business as usual. With Trump, the House and Senate may have to spend considerable amounts of time nullifying his more outrageous antics that they won't have time to do as much damage. Trump is far from ideal, but not being a career politician, some common sense (such as it is) might be put back into running the USA.

  38. Brian Allan 1

    "Jill Stein joins the presidential farce"

    Ain't it the truth!? Love the reality show of US politics!

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like